The Nanny Notes

Product Review - Free Parental Control Bar

Ben Beck

Net Nanny is made by ContentWatch, my employers. The company is a for profit institution, and employs a good number of individuals that it pays well and that pay helps feed their families. We can't give Net Nanny away for free, or we'd all die. No money = no food = death. However, there are some companies out there that giveaway software because they don't need the money (or because they've monetized their free product in other ways). We salute those organizations. One such organization, the Website Rating and Advisory Council, has created a free web filter toolbar that you can add to Internet Explorer to enable safer searching. While our company does not make it a point to prop up competitors, we do see value in free tools, even ones that may compete with our own software. So, here's my review of the WRAAC's ParentalControlBar Internet Filter.

Installation:
Quick and easy. Your computer will continue to tell you that the program does not come from a trusted source. However, this is common with most software you try to install on a Microsoft Windows system - since we're telling you you can trust them, you can. Just click “run whenever you see that as an option. You'll be asked to enter a password and your email address. Very easy installation and I had the toolbar running in under 5 minutes.

First test:
So, I'm not a big pornographer myself. As such, my first test simply included me typing “playboy.com into the browser. Voila - blocked. It's nice that the block comes up with an override option, in case you feel the site is okay for yourself but not for the little ones. It also has an option to add the site to a white list, which would always let the site through in the future.

More extensive testing:
Tricky children may try to go through Google to get to their sites, instead of just typing the web address into the browser. So, my next test was to go to Google and search for “playboy. Blocked. No, not the search. The actual site “google.com was blocked. Hmm, guess it's because Google hasn't been living up to their “Do No Evil slogan as of late. Trying to navigate to bing.com - nope, they're blocked too. The reason for blocking is because these sites are “unlabeled. C'mon guys - two of the biggest sites on the web and you haven't categorized them?
Ultimately, however, the youngest of kids might not need access to search engines - they just need a couple fun, very child friendly sites, right? So, I'll test several Net Nanny suggested kid friendly sites see if they make it through:

• Nick.com - Blocked.
• BiologyInMotion.com - Blocked. Granted, this site does talk about bile, urine, and thyroid glands - maybe it should've been blocked. Really though, it made the Net Nanny safe sites list because it's full of fun and great tools to teach kids about biology.
• PBSKids.org - Blocked. Of any of the sites out there this should be classified as one of the most safe sites out there.
• All sites blocked - couldn't find one that wasn't.

It looks like their software doesn't come ready “out of the box. A quick check of their own website, ParentalControlBar.com, shows that even their own site is not getting through because it has a little social networking tool embedded which isn't on their categorized list. The settings are definitely going to need some tweaking.

Changing the control settings:
They've done a good job with the user interface. It's clean and not cluttered with too many options. There are three tabs in the settings window: allowed site list, blocked site list, basic site filters. For now, I don't want to put any sites into the allowed/blocked tabs. Going straight for the filter settings, of which there were just a few (thank goodness - free tools should be super simple because there isn't much buy in to actually learn the software). You can block or allow the following categories: unlabeled content, explicit sexual material, nudity/sexual material, violence, strong language, chat rooms & message boards, potentially harmful activities. The last four categories are all set to “allow out of the box. I'll check those real quick to see if there are any “violent sites that are being categorized:

• 666Gamer.com - found this site by searching Google (on a non-protected computer) for “best violent websites and then tried it on the protected computer - blocked as “unlabeled.
• umm - I don't follow the violence industry so I'm at a loss for more sites to try. I tested several that came back in Google search results and all were blocked as “unlabeled.

It looks like their “unlabeled category is blocking everything. Now I'll set the “unlabled to allow and try these same sites again. Okay, now that I've allowed the “unlabeled category everything is getting through. I've still got the sex/nudity filters turned on, but the toolbar didn't block playboy.com. Thus, I've come to the conclusion that their preset filter is garbage.

Broken Filter, What is it Good For?
It seems like this filter will still work well for the youngest of kiddies, when you just want to allow a few sites that you've previewed and added to the white list. For this you're going to have to manually type in a few sites you'd like to be available. My tests show that this feature works well.

You can also set up a black list - though this isn't recommended. Imagine trying to view the few hundred million sites out there to determine whether they were bad or not. There are millions of pornographic websites. You could try and download a black list that someone else has already compilied. Download the blacklist here. But when I go into the settings and look at the blacklist page, I'm let down once again. There is no way to import a list. There isn't even a way to copy/paste the list in. There is no way I'm manually typing in a few million domain names manually. Looks like a real blacklist is out. To the makers of the ParentalControlBar I'd suggest an “import blacklist feature as a first priority for development.

Circumventability
Even if you are a computer wiz and know how to lock down your user account so it won't allow for a new browser to be installed (which would kill this tool which doesn't work in Firefox or Chrome) you still can't lock down the “uninstall feature built into Internet Explorer. I'm not going to say how to uninstall this tool through IE, but it isn't tough - I imagine any kid could figure it out in about 12 seconds.

Conclusion
Super easy setup and nice user interface got my hopes up, only to be later shattered by the fact that this tool does not work as advertised. But heck, it's free. The only situation I would use this tool is if I was putting it on my family computer for my 5 year old to be able to surf one or two sites that I've pre-determined and loaded into the white list. For that kind of scenario I think this would work fine. Either way, mad props to the maker of this toolbar... if they keep developing it and tightening it up then it may be something I'll someday use.

Video Game Legislation Defeated in California and Utah

P. Ferioli

Over the last month or so, we have seen a law in California about selling violent video games to minors being upheld as unconstitutional, as well as a veto by Gov. Hunstman of Utah Bill H.B. 353, which also sought to regulate the sale of violent games to minors. The defeat of these attempted measures has clearly left parents with the responsibility to be involved in their childrens video game purchases and playing.

In both of these cases, the voluntary rating system established by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was pointed to as a system that is already in place that helps retailers, parents and kids understand what content is found in a particular video game and why the rating has been applied to these games. Nearly 100% of video games sold through retailers today has the ESRB rating clearly printed on the packaging. Responsible parents should learn to use these ratings in the same way they have for movies using the voluntary movie ratings system.

Besides the well known ESRB ratings like E for Everyone, T for Teen, M for Mature, the ESRB goes into greater detail about the content found in the game by using 'Content Descriptors'. Here is a look at what categories these fall into:

• Alcohol Reference - Reference to and/or images of alcoholic beverages   
• Animated Blood - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of blood    
• Blood - Depictions of blood    
• Blood and Gore - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts    
• Cartoon Violence - Violent actions involving cartoon-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted    
• Comic Mischief - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor  Crude Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including “bathroom humor    
• Drug Reference - Reference to and/or images of illegal drugs    
• Fantasy Violence - Violent actions of a fantasy nature, involving human or non-human characters in situations distinguishable from real life    
• Intense Violence - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons and depictions of human injury and death    
• Language - Mild to moderate use of profanity    
• Lyrics - Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol or drug use in music    
• Mature Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving "adult" humor, including sexual references    
• Nudity - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity    
• Partial Nudity - Brief and/or mild depictions of nudity    
• Real Gambling - Player can gamble, including betting or wagering real cash or currency
• Sexual Content - Non-explicit depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including partial nudity
• Sexual Themes - References to sex or sexuality    
• Sexual Violence - Depictions of rape or other violent sexual acts    
• Simulated Gambling - Player can gamble without betting or wagering real cash or currency    
• Strong Language - Explicit and/or frequent use of profanity    
• Strong Lyrics - Explicit and/or frequent references to profanity, sex, violence, alcohol or drug use in music    
• Strong Sexual Content - Explicit and/or frequent depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity    
• Suggestive Themes - Mild provocative references or materials    
• Tobacco Reference - Reference to and/or images of tobacco products    
• Use of Drugs - The consumption or use of illegal drugs    
• Use of Alcohol - The consumption of alcoholic beverages    
• Use of Tobacco - The consumption of tobacco products    
• Violence - Scenes involving aggressive conflict. May contain bloodless dismemberment    
• Violent References - References to violent acts

These detailed breakdowns of what a consumer can expect to find in a game are a great tool to help parents make decisions on not only if a games rating is appropriate, but why it is rated for that age.

Parents should also use valuable video game reviews at Web sites like:

What They Play
GamerDad: Gaming With Children
Common Sense Media

In attempting to help parent manage these game playing decisions, Net Nanny is proud to be the first parental control software solution to set age-based gaming restrictions using the ESRB rating system and the first to block desktop PC games based on the above content descriptors.



This new feature is continuing to involve and improve as Net Nanny is continually updated, as always your feedback on this new feature is valued and appreciated. You can leave a comment or send us an email here.

Towards a Safer Use of the Internet for Children in the EU

P. Ferioli

A very enlightening analytical report has come out of the European Union, conducted by the Gallup Organization, upon the request of Directorate General Information Society and Media. You can read the full report here.

This survey was designed to study parents views about their children's use of the Internet, to determine parents strategies to supervise their child's Internet usage and their own awareness of safety measures.

Some results of note:

• Half of the parents who did not use the Internet themselves said that their child had online access. Nine out of 10 children — who were Internet users — accessed it from home.   
• The biggest risk in parents eyes (65%) was that their child might see sexually or violently explicit images on the Internet: 45% were very worried.   
• Parents in all countries mentioned that they have various rules and restrictions when their child used the Internet. For example, approximately eight out of 10 parents listed online shopping, talking to people that their child did not know in real life and spending a lot of time online as activities that were not allowed for their child.    
• Almost three out of 10 Dutch parents (28%) and a quarter of the parents in the UK (24%) said that, when their child asked for their help, this was because they had been contacted by a stranger, were bullied or harassed online or saw violently or sexually explicit images online.  

On the use of monitoring and filtering software

• Half of the parents participating in this survey answered that they had installed filtering software on the computer that their child used at home. Monitoring software was not as popular, but was still used by almost four out of 10 parents (37%).    
• There was considerable variation across countries in the use of monitoring and filtering software: more than half of the British parents used such software compared to only 5% of the parents in Romania and Bulgaria.  

Reasons for not using monitoring and filtering software

• More than six out of 10 parents — who did not use filtering or monitoring software — simply saw no need for such software since they trusted their child on the Internet. Fourteen percent of the parents who did not use filtering or monitoring software did not know how to obtain or use it. Only a minority (3%) did not use such software because they did not believe in its efficiency.  

There are many observations that come from reading this detailed look across the countries that make up the EU about cultural differences and parental perspectives. One that sticks out to me is how many parents trust their kids on the Internet, without using the Internet themselves. This is a generation gap that must be crossed. As a parent, I find this issue to be particularly troubling. I trust my kids, and I know what TV shows, movies, games and books my kids read or view, I know what friends they are talking to on the phone or whose house they are at...why wouldn't I want to know what they are doing online?

The Child Online Protection Act is Dead

P. Ferioli